Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Secure
Sustainable
Together
tiv
ec
Te
Technology Roadmap
rg
2040
Ene
2035
es
2045
chn
rs
olo g y P e
Foreword
Current trends in energy supply and use
are patently unsustainable economically,
environmentally and socially. Without decisive
action, energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide
(CO2) will more than double by 2050 and increased
fossil energy demand will heighten concerns over
the security of supplies. We can and must change
our current path. However, this will take an energy
revolution and low-carbon energy technologies
will have a crucial role to play. Energy efficiency,
sources of renewable energy, carbon capture and
storage (CCS), nuclear power and new transport
technologies will all require widespread deployment
if we are to achieve reductions in greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions. Every major country and sector of
the economy must be involved. The task is urgent
if we are to make sure that investment decisions
taken now do not saddle us with suboptimal
technologies in the long term.
Awareness is growing of the need to turn political
statements and analytical work into concrete action.
To drive this forward, in 2008 the G8 requested
the International Energy Agency (IEA) to lead the
development of a series of roadmaps for some of
the most important technologies. By identifying
the steps needed to accelerate the implementation
of radical technology changes, these roadmaps
will enable governments, industry and financial
partners to make the right choices. This will, in turn,
help societies make the right decisions.
Hydrogen and fuel cell technologies, once they
are more developed can support climate change
and energy security goals in several sectors of the
energy system, such as the transport, industry,
buidings and the power sector. Hydrogen can
connect different energy sectors and energy
transmission and distribution (T&D) networks,
and thus increase the operational flexibility of
future low-carbon energy systems. It can help to:
1) achieve very low-carbon individual motorised
transport; 2)integrate very high shares of variable
renewable energy (VRE) into the energy system;
3)contribute to the decarbonisation of the industry
and the buildings sector.
This publication reflects the views of the International Energy Agency (IEA) Secretariat but does not necessarily reflect
those of individual IEA member countries. The IEA makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, in respect
to the publications contents (including its completeness or accuracy) and shall not be responsible for any use of, or
reliance on, the publication.
Foreword
Table of contents
Foreword
Table of contents
Acknowledgements
Key findings
Introduction
11
Roadmap scope
11
12
Hydrogen in transport
12
19
Hydrogen in industry
24
25
27
28
30
34
Transport
34
VRE integration
47
Industry
53
54
Parameters of key technologies today and in the future as used in the model
56
58
58
Technology development
59
64
Hydrogen in transport
65
66
67
Finance
68
International collaboration
69
69
70
72
References
73
List of figures
Figure 1. Energy system today and in the future
10
Figure 2. Well-to-wheel (WTW) emissions vs. vehicle range for several technology options
14
Figure 3. Cumulative cash flow curve of hydrogen stations in the early market phase
17
Figure 4. T
odays carbon footprint for various hydrogen pathways and for gasoline
and compressed natural gas in the European Union
18
20
21
23
Figure 8. Ene-Farm fuel cell micro co-generation cumulative sales, subsidies and estimated prices, 2009-14 27
Figure 9. Schematic representation of technology development potential of different electrolysers
29
30
Figure 11. Production cost for PEMFCs for FCEVs as a function of annual production
31
Figure 12. Energy-related carbon emission reductions by sector in the ETP 2DS
34
Figure 13. PLDV stock by technology for the United States, EU 4 and Japan in the 2DS high H2
36
Figure 14. Cost of hydrogen as a function of electricity price and annual load factor
37
Figure 15. S
pecific PLDV stock on-road WTW emissions by technology for the United States,
EU 4 and Japan in the 2DS high H2
39
Figure 16. Scheme of hydrogen T&D and retail infrastructure as represented within the model
40
Figure 17. Hydrogen generation by technology for the 2DS high H2 in the United States, EU 4 and Japan
42
Figure 18. Hydrogen production costs without T&D for the 2DS high H2
42
Figure 19. Hydrogen stations for the 2DS high H2 in the United States, EU 4 and Japan
43
Figure 20. Vehicle costs, fuel costs and TCD for FCEVs in the 2DS high H2 in the United States
45
Figure 21. Subsidy per FCEV and share of annual subsidy as a percentage of petroleum
fuel tax revenue under the 2DS high H2 in the United States, EU 4 and Japan
46
Figure 22. C
O2 mitigation from FCEVs in transport under the 2DS high H2 in the United States,
EU 4 and Japan
47
Figure 23. Global electricity generation mix under the 6DS and 2DS
48
Figure 24. Installed electricity storage capacity for selected regions today and in 2050 under the 2DS
and the storage breakthrough scenario
48
Figure 25. L COE for inter-seasonal energy storage via power-to-power systems and VRE integration
via power-to-gas systems in 2030 and 2050
51
Figure 26. LCOE of different energy storage technologies for daily arbitrage in 2030 and 2050
52
Figure 27. M
arginal abatement costs of different hydrogen-based VRE power integration
applications in 2030 and 2050
52
55
Table of contents
List of tables
Table 1. Workshops parallel to the development of the Technology Roadmap on Hydrogen and Fuel Cells
11
13
13
Table 4. Qualitative overview of hydrogen T&D technologies for hydrogen delivery in the transport sector
16
Table 5. Existing public hydrogen refuelling stations and targets announced by hydrogen initiatives
17
19
Table 7. Qualitative overview of characteristics of geological formations suitable for hydrogen storage
22
26
28
Table 10. Current performance of key hydrogen conversion, T&D and storage technologies
32
Table 11. Cost of PLDVs by technology as computed in the model for the United States
38
Table 12. Techno-economic parameters of FCEVs as computed in the model for the United States
38
49
Table 14. System specifications for inter-seasonal energy storage and arbitrage
49
Table 15. P
arameters used in the model for stationary hydrogen generation and conversion
technologies as well as for energy storage and VRE integration systems today and in the future
56
Table 16. Initiatives and public-private partnerships to promote hydrogen and fuel cell technologies
64
List of boxes
16
18
22
26
35
37
41
44
54
Acknowledgements
The IEA Energy Technology Policy Division
prepared this publication. AlexanderKrner was
the project leader and the primary author. Cecilia
Tam and SimonBennett, successive co-ordinators
of the Energy Technology Roadmaps programme
and Jean-FranoisGagn, Head of the Energy
Technology Policy Division, were responsible for the
development of this roadmap and provided valuable
input and leadership throughout. PhilippeBenoit
and DidierHoussin provided important guidance.
PierpaoloCazzola, AraceliFernandesPales and
UweRemme provided significant input and support.
Many other IEA colleagues provided thoughtful
comments and support including FranoisCuenot,
TimurGl, YoshikiEndo, SteveHeinen,
SimonMller, LuisMunuera, CdricPhilibert,
DanielePoponi, YasuhiroSakuma and TaliTrigg.
This work was developed in collaboration with
governments, industry, experts, and the IEA energy
technology network. The roadmap was supported
by the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade, and
Industry (METI), NOW GmbH-National Organisation
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology, Adam Opel
AG, Air Liquide, BP plc, Honda R&D Co Ltd, Nissan
Motor Co, Shell, Toyota Motor Co, US Department
of Energy (US DOE), the European Commission, the
Advanced Fuel Cell Implementing Agreement and
the Hydrogen Implementing Agreement.
The volunteers of the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell
Technology Roadmap steering committee
have provided guidance over the course of its
development: RosemaryAlbinson, Michael Ball,
HannoButsch, AndrzejChmura, AndyFuchs,
NancyGarland, RittmarvonHelmolt,
HitoshiIgarashi, HiroyukiKanesaka, EricMiller,
PhilippeMulard, TadashiNomura, EijiOhira,
HideoOkamoto and MarcSteen.
Acknowledgements
Key findings
Cross-cutting opportunities
offered by hydrogen and
fuel cells
zz H
ydrogen is a flexible energy carrier that can be
produced from any regionally prevalent primary
energy source. Moreover, it can be effectively
transformed into any form of energy for diverse
end-use applications. Hydrogen is particularly
well suited for use in fuel cells that efficiently use
hydrogen to generate electricity.
zz H
ydrogen with a low-carbon footprint has the
potential to facilitate significant reductions in
energy-related CO2 emissions and to contribute
to limiting global temperature rise to 2C,
as outlined in the high hydrogen variant
(2DShighH2) of theIEAEnergy Technology
Perspectives (ETP) 2C Scenario (2DS). In addition,
hydrogen use can lower local air pollutants and
noise emissions compared to direct fossil fuel
combustion. By enabling continued use of fossil
fuel resources for end-use applications under a
2DS, hydrogen production in combination with
CCS can provide energy security benefits and
help maintain a diversified fuel mix.
zz A
s an energy carrier, hydrogen can enable new
linkages between energy supply and demand,
in both a centralised or decentralised manner,
potentially enhancing overall energy system
flexibility. By connecting different energy
transmission and distribution (T&D) networks,
sources of low-carbon energy can be connected
to end-use applications that are challenging
to decarbonise, including transport, industry
and buildings. In remote areas with little access
to the power grid, these connections can
expand off-grid access to energy services while
minimising emissions.
zz P
rove on-road practicality and economics across
the supply chain of FCEVs by putting the first
tens of thousands of vehicles on the road, along
with hydrogen generation, T&D and refuelling
infrastructure, including at least 500 to 1000
stations in suitable regions around the world, and
cross-border projects. Build upon deployment
programmes in Europe, Japan, Korea and
California as well as the use of captive fleets.
zz S
timulate investment and early market
deployment of hydrogen and fuel cell
technologies and their infrastructure through
effective policy support to bring down costs.
National and regional priorities should determine
the value chains and the market barriers to be
targeted.
zz C
ontinue to strengthen and harmonise
international codes and standards necessary
for safe and reliable handling and metering of
hydrogen in end-use applications.
zz K
eep up supporting technology progress and
innovation by unlocking public and private funds
for RD&D for key hydrogen technologies, such as
fuel cells and electrolysers. Enhance the focus on
cross-cutting research areas, such as materials,
that could play a transformative role in improving
performance. Where possible, promote projects
with international cooperation to maximise the
efficiency of funding.
Introduction
Hydrogen is a flexible energy carrier with potential
applications across all energy sectors. It is one of
only a few potential near-zero emission energy
carriers, alongside electricity and advanced
biofuels. Nonetheless, it is important to note
that hydrogen is an energy carrier and not an
energy source: although hydrogen as a molecular
component is abundant in nature, energy needs to
be used to generate pure hydrogen. The hydrogen
can then be used as a fuel for end-use conversion
processes, for example using fuel cells to produce
power. As is the case for electricity generation,
hydrogen production incurs a cost and suffers from
thermodynamic losses.
Hydrogen can be produced from various primary or
secondary energy sources, depending on regional
availability. Primary energy sources useful for
hydrogen production comprise renewable sources,
such as biomass, and also fossil fuels, such as
natural gas and coal. Electricity can also be used for
hydrogen generation using electrolysers, which are
a pivotal technology for enabling the splitting of
water into its components hydrogen and oxygen.
Hydrogen itself contains no carbon if used in a
fuel cell or burned in a heat engine, water or water
vapour is the only exhaust. Nevertheless, hydrogen
can have a very significant carbon footprint. Its
lifecycle carbon emissions are determined by the
primary energy source and the process used for
hydrogen production, and need to be taken into
account when quantifying climate benefits.
While not ignoring the implications of hydrogen
generation pathways, this roadmap focuses
primarily on the demand side of the energy system.
There, hydrogen could play an important role
in future road transport, as FCEVs can be a lowcarbon alternative to conventional passenger cars
and trucks. In buildings, micro co-generation
units could increase energy efficiency. 2 In the
longer run, industrial processes in the refining,
steel and chemical industries could be substantially
decarbonised through the use of hydrogen with a
low-carbon footprint. In many, but not all of these
applications, fuel cells are an important technology
for converting hydrogen to power and heat. Fuel
cells are intimately but not exclusively linked to
hydrogen. They can also be used with other fuels
such as natural gas or even liquid hydrocarbons, thus
helping their early adoption.
Introduction
Today
H2
Heat network
Electricity grid
Hydrogen
KEY POINT: Hydrogen can link different energy sectors and energy T&D networks and thus increase
the operational flexibility of future low-carbon energy systems.
10
Table1: W
orkshops parallel to the development
of the Technology Roadmap on Hydrogen and Fuel Cells
Date
Workshop focus
9-10July 2013
28-29January 2014
26-27June 2014
Roadmap scope
zz h
ydrogen in the energy supply sector VRE
integration and energy storage, comprising
power-to-power, power-to-gas and power-to-fuel
zz h
ydrogen infrastructure T&D, storage and retail
technologies
zz k ey hydrogen generation and conversion
technologies electrolysers and fuel cells.
Introduction
11
Hydrogen in transport
An overview of hydrogen systems in the transport
sector and their techno-economic parameters is
shown in Table 2. More detailed technical data on
hydrogen technology components, such as fuel
cells and electrolysers, are briefly discussed in the
sections Key hydrogen production technologies
and Key hydrogen conversion technologies as
well as in the Roadmap Technology Annex.
Although other pathways to use hydrogen as a fuel
in transport are feasible, e.g. via the use of synthetic
methane in compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles
or through conversion to methanol, the current
analysis focuses on FCEVs and the use of pure
hydrogen.
12
Power or energy
Energy efficiency*
capacity
Investment
cost**
Lifetime
Maturity
80 - 120kW
Tank-to-wheel
efficiency
43-60% (HHV)
USD60000100000
150000km
Early market
introduction
Hydrogen retail
stations
200kg/day
~80%, incl.
compression to
70MPa
USD1.5million2.5million
Early market
introduction
Tube trailer
(gaseous) for
hydrogen delivery
Up to 1 000kg
~100% (without
compression)
Mature
Up to 4000kg
Boil-off stream:
0.3% loss per day
USD750000
Mature
* Unless otherwise stated, efficiencies are based on lower heating values (LHV).
** All power-specific investment costs refer to the energy output.
Notes: HHV = higher heating value; kg = kilogram; kW = kilowatt.
Sources: IEA data; Decourt et al. (2014), Hydrogen-Based Energy Conversion, More than Storage: System Flexibility; Elgowainy (2014),
Hydrogen infrastructure analysis in early markets of FCEVs, IEA Hydrogen Roadmap North America Workshop; ETSAP (2014),
Hydrogen Production and Distribution; Iiyama et al. (2014), FCEV Development at Nissan, ECS Transactions, Vol. 3, pp. 11-17; Nexant
(2007), Liquefaction and pipeline costs, Hydrogen Delivery Analysis Meeting, 8-9May; NREL (2014), Hydrogen Station Compression,
Storage and Dispensing - Technical Status and Costs; NREL (2012a), National Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Learning Demonstration Final
Report; USDOE (2010a), Hydrogen Program 2010 Annual Progress Report - Innovative Hydrogen Liquefaction Cycle; USDOE (2010b), DOE
Hydrogen Program 2010 Annual Progress Report - Technology Validation Sub-Program Overview; Yang and Ogden (2007), Determining
the lowest-cost hydrogen delivery mode, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, pp. 268-286.
FCEVs
FCEVs are essentially electric vehicles using hydrogen
stored in a pressurised tank and a fuel cell for onboard power generation. FCEVs are also hybrid
cars, as braking energy is recuperated and stored
in a battery. The electric power from the battery
is used to reduce peak demand from the fuel cell
during acceleration and to optimize its operational
efficiency. Being both electric and hybrid vehicles,
FCEVs benefit from technological advancement
Running FCEVs
2020
Europe
192
5000
~350000
Japan
102
1000
100000
Korea
100
5000
50000
UnitedStates
146
~300
~20000
Sources: Weeda et al. (2014), Towards a Comprehensive Hydrogen Infrastructure for Fuel Cell Electric Cars in View of EU GHG Reduction
Targets; personal contact with US Department of Energy; Japanese registration number from database of Japan Automobile Dealers
Association (JADA, March, 2015).
13
Figure 2: W
ell-to-wheel (WTW) emissions vs. vehicle range
for several technology options
180
ICE
2013
160
FCEV
140
2013
BEV
120
2013
BEV
100
2013
80
2050
60
40
2050
20
PHEV
2050
2050
0
0
200
400
600
800
1 000
1 200
1 400
Range (km)
Notes: gCO2/km = grams carbon dioxide per kilometre; WTW = wheel-to-wheel; the upper range of BEV emissions takes into account
todays average world power generation mix, the lower range is based on 100% renewable electricity; the upper range of FCEV
emissions takes into account a. hydrogen production mix of 90% NG SMR and 10% grid electricity, the lower range is based on 100%
renewable hydrogen; the lower range of PHEV emissions takes into account 65% electric driving; by 2050, a biofuel share of 30% is
assumed for PHEVs and ICEs.
KEY POINT: FCEVs can achieve a mobility service compared to todays conventional
cars at potentially very low WTW carbon emissions.
14
drive down fuel cell costs, the cost of the highpressure tank is largely determined by expensive
composite materials, which are expected to fall
much more slowly (Argonne National Laboratory
- Nuclear Division, 2010). This is why the focus
of recent R&D has been on accelerating cost
reductions in composite materials for high-pressure
tanks. To bring down the costs of the entire
FCEV, manufacturers are currently focusing on
technology packaging, to finally be able to mount
the fuel cell power train on the same chassis used
for conventional cars.
Hydrogen T&D
Hydrogen refuelling stations can be supplied by
one of two alternative technologies: hydrogen
can be produced at the refuelling station using
smaller-scale electrolysers or natural gas steam
methane reformers, or can be transported from a
centralised production plant. Each approach has its
own advantages and trade-offs. While large-scale,
centralised hydrogen production offers economies
of scale to minimise the cost of hydrogen generation,
the need to distribute the hydrogen results in higher
T&D costs. Meanwhile, the opposite is true for
decentralised hydrogen generation. While T&D costs
are minimised, smaller-scale production adds costs at
the hydrogen generation stage. Finding the optimal
network configuration requires detailed analysis
taking into account the full range of local factors,
such as geographic distribution of resources for
hydrogen production, existing hydrogen generation
and T&D infrastructure, anticipated hydrogen
demand at the retail station and distance between
the place of hydrogen production and hydrogen
demand. However, economies of scale realised in
large centralised hydrogen generation facilities tend
to potentially outweigh the additional costs of longer
T&D distances.
A number of options are available for hydrogen
T&D: gaseous truck transport; liquefied truck
transport; and pumping gaseous hydrogen through
pipelines (Table 4). A trade-off exists between fixed
and variable costs: while gaseous truck delivery
has the lowest investment cost, variable costs are
high as a result of the lower transport capacity. The
opposite is true for pipelines fixed costs are driven
by high investment costs. Once the pipeline is fully
15
Table4: Q
ualitative overview of hydrogen T&D technologies for hydrogen
delivery in the transport sector
Capacity
Transport
distance
Energy loss
Fixed costs
Variable
costs
Deployment
phase
Gaseous tube
trailers
Low
Low
Low
Low
High
Near term
Liquefied truck
trailers
Medium
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium to
long term
High
High
Low
High
Low
Medium to
long term
Hydrogen
pipelines
16
Figure 3: C
umulative cash flow curve of hydrogen stations
in the early market phase
Measures for optimising the business case:
Reduction of investment costs
Reduction of operational expenses
Improvement of utilisation
Public support
Valley of Death
10 to 15 years
Table 5: E
xisting public hydrogen refuelling stations
and targets announced by hydrogen initiatives
Country or region
Planned stations
2015
2020
Europe
36
~80
~430
Japan
21
100
>100
Korea
13
43
200
UnitedStates
>50
>100
Sources: Weeda et al. (2014), Towards a Comprehensive Hydrogen Infrastructure for Fuel Cell Electric Cars in View of EU GHG Reduction Targets;
HySUT (2014), Fuel Cell Vehicle Demonstration and Hydrogen Infrastructure Project in Japan; FFC (2015), Fuel Cell Commercialisation Conference
in Japan (FCCJ), http://fccj.jp/hystation/index.html#hystop; personal contact with US Department of Energy.
17
Figure 4: T
odays carbon footprint for various hydrogen pathways and for
gasoline and compressed natural gas in the European Union
Decentralised electrolysis, grid electricity, compression 880 bar
Centralised electrolysis, wind electricity, pipeline T&D, compression 880 bar
Centralised NG SMR, pipeline T&D, compression 880 bar
Centralised NG SMR, gaseous truck T&D, compression 880 bar
50
100
150
200
250
Transportation to market
Source: adapted from JRC (2013), Technical Reports Well-to-tank Report Version 4.0 JEC Well-to-Wheels Analysis, Joint
Research Centre, Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
KEY POINT: Depending on the generation, T&D and retail pathway, the carbon footprint of
hydrogen can vary between almost 20 and more than 230gCO2per MJ.
18
Table 6: C
urrent performance of hydrogen systems
for large-scale energy storage
Application
Power or
energy
capacity
Energy
efficiency*
Investment cost**
Lifetime
Maturity
Power-to-power
(including
underground
storage)
GWh to
TWh
20000 to
60000hours
(stack lifetime
electrolyser)
Demonstration
Underground
storage
GWh to
TWh
90-95%, incl.
com-pression
~8 USD/kWh
30years
Demonstration
Power-to-gas
(hydrogenenriched natural
gas, HENG)
GWh to
TWh
20000 to
60000hours
(stack lifetime
electrolyser)
Demonstration
20000 to
60000 hours
(stack lifetime
electrolyser)
Demonstration
Power-to-gas
(methanation)
GWh to
TWh
19
10 MW
1 MW
100 kW
CAES
Flywheel
H2
T&D
100 MW
Offgrid
utility
scale
End-user
10 kW
Offgrid/
end-user
self cons.
Day
Microsecond Second Minute Hour
Week
Discharge duration
PHS
Generation
1 GW
Battery
Arbitrage
Seasonal
Inter-seasonal storage
storage
Supercapacitors
Small-scale
wind PV:
grid support
T&D deferral
Frequency
regulation
Black start
Load following
Voltage
regulation
Power requirment
Large-scale
wind PV:
grid support
Siting
Technology
Applications
1 kW
Season
Day
Microsecond Second Minute Hour
Week
Discharge duration
Season
Note: CAES = compressed air energy storage; PHS = pumped hydro energy storage.
KEY POINT: Hydrogen-based electricity storage covers large-scale and long-term storage applications.
20
Figure 6: C
urrent conversion efficiencies of various hydrogen-based
VRE integration pathways
Power-to-power
100
Electricity
73
Electrolysis
67
Compression
Power-to-gas (blending)
Electricity
100
Power-to-power
Electrolysis
Power-to-gas (methanation)
ElectroElectricity
100
lysis
73
Compression
70
58
Compression
73
Methanation
73
Compression
T&D
55
68
T&D
Gas turbine
54
26
Power-to-power
Gas
21
turbine
Power-to-power
Power-to-fuel
Electricity
29
Fuel cell
100
Electrolysis
67
T&D
64
Retail
54
Fuel cell
24
Note: The numbers denote useful energy; except for gas turbines, efficiencies are based on HHV; the conversion efficiency of gas
turbines is based on LHV.
KEY POINT: Total round-trip efficiencies of hydrogen-based energy storage applications are low.
21
Large-scale underground
hydrogen storage
Storing hydrogen-rich gaseous energy carriers
underground has a long history and became
popular with the use of town gas to provide energy
for heating and lighting purposes in the middle of
the nineteenth century.
A geological formation can be suitable for hydrogen
storage if tightness is assured, the pollution of
the hydrogen gas through bacteria or organic
and non-organic compounds is minimal, and the
development of the storage and the borehole is
possible at acceptable costs. Actual availability
of suitable geological formations where energy
storage is required is another limiting factor.
Comparing different underground storage
options with respect to safety, technical feasibility,
investment cost and operational cost, using salt
caverns currently appears to be the most favourable
option (Table 7), being already deployed at several
sites in the UnitedStates and the UnitedKingdom.
Table 7: Q
ualitative overview of characteristics of geological formations
suitable for hydrogen storage
Salt caverns
Depleted oil
fields
Depleted
gas fields
Aquifers
Safety
++
Technical feasibility
++
++
++
Investment costs
++
Operation costs
++
++
Source: adapted from HyUnder (2013), Assessment of the Potential, the Actors and Relevant Business Cases for Large Scale and Seasonal
Storage of Renewable Electricity by Hydrogen Underground Storage in Europe - Benchmarking of Selected Storage Options.
22
potential if hydrogen produced from otherwisecurtailed renewable electricity was blended into
natural gas (HENG). For example, the EU natural
gas grid accounts for more than 2.2 million km
of pipelines and about 100 000 million cubic
Further research
needed
Transport
Distribution
Gas stoves
Co-generation plants
Fuel cells
Stirling motor
Fan burners
Condensing boilers
Gas burners
Engines
CNG tanks
Odorisation
Pressure regulation
Gas chromatographs
Quantity transformers
Turbine meters
Diaphragm meters
Ultrasonic meters
Valves
House installation
Seals
Connections
Steel pipelines
Plastic pipelines
Tanks
Storage
Storage installations
Pore storages
Cavern storages
Gas turbines
Compression stations
Transmission pipelines
Adjustment &
modification
needed
H2 blending
uncritical
Appliances
Source: Deutscher Verein des Gas- und Wasserfaches (2013), Entwicklung von Modularen Konzepten zur Erzeugung, Speicherung
und Einspeisung von Wasserstoff und Methan in Erdgasnetz.
KEY POINT: The most critical applications with respect to the blend share
of hydrogen are gas turbines, compressing stations and CNG tanks.
23
Hydrogen in industry
Most of todays hydrogen demand is generated and
used on industrial sites as captive hydrogen. In the
EU more than 60% of hydrogen is captive, one-third
is supplied from by-product sources, and less than
10% of the market is met by merchant hydrogen
(Kopp, A., 2013). In general, industrial hydrogen
demand offers a significant potential for carbon
emission mitigation, but the cost of low-carbon
hydrogen is critical.
24
25
Power or
energy capacity
Energy
efficiency*
Investment
cost**
0.3-25kW
Electric:
35-50% (HHV)
<20000 USD/kW
(home system, 1 kWe)
Co-generation:
up to 95%
<10000USD/kW
(commercial system, 25 kWe)
Life
time
Maturity
26
Figure 8: E
ne-Farm fuel cell micro co-generation cumulative sales,
subsidies and estimated prices, 200914
140 000
50 000
45 000
120 000
35 000
30 000
80 000
USD
100 000
Units
Cumulative units
installed
40 000
Estimated price
without subsidy
25 000
60 000
20 000
15 000
40 000
10 000
20 000
Subsidy
5 000
0
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Sources: Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Strategy Council (2014), Strategic Roadmap for Hydrogen Fuel Cells; IEA AFC IA (2014), IEA AFC IA
Annex Meeting 25.
KEY POINT: The price of Ene-Farm fuel cell micro co-generation systems
has fallen by more than 50% since 2009.
27
Key hydrogen
generation technologies
The following sections briefly discuss selected
hydrogen generation technologies, such as
reformers and electrolysers. The Technical Annex to
this roadmap provides more detailed information
on specific technical issues.
Ffficiency*
Initial
investment cost
Life time
Maturity
Steam methane
reformer, large
scale
150-300 MW
70-85%
400-600 USD/kW
30 years
Mature
Steam methane
reformer, small
scale
0.15-15 MW
~51%
15 years
Demonstration
Alkaline
electrolyser
Up to 150 MW
65-82% (HHV)
Mature
PEM electrolyser
Up to 150 kW
(stacks)
Up to 1 MW
(systems)
65-78% (HHV)
Lab scale
85-90% (HHV)
Application
SO electrolyser
20 000Early market
60 000 hours
~1 000 h
R&D
28
28
Electrolysis
Figure 9: S
chematic representation of technology development potential
of different electrolysers
Alkaline (commercial)
2.0
Higher efficiency
1.5
0.5
Usual operating range of current density
0
0.5
1.5
1.0
2.0
KEY POINT: Although alkaline electrolysers are a mature and affordable technology, PEM and SO
electrolysers show a greater potential to reduce capital costs and to increase efficiency.
29
29
Fuel cells
Fuel cells allow the oxidation of hydrogen-rich
fuel and its conversion to useful energy without
burning it in an open flame. Compared to other
single-stage processes to convert chemical energy
into electricity, e.g. open-cycle gas turbines, their
electrical efficiency is higher and in the range of
32% to up to 70% (HHV).
40
150
30
100
20
Capacity additions
50
10
Transportation
Thousand units
MW
Stationary
Portable
Units by application
Stationary
Transportation
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Portable
KEY POINT: Currently, more than 80% of all fuel cells sold are used in stationary applications.
30
Figure 11: P
roduction cost for PEMFCs for FCEVs
as a function of annual production
USD/kW
350
US DOE
300
2007 estimate
250
2014 estimate
200
2020 target
150
Ultimate target
100
50
High
0
0
100 000
200 000
300 000
Annual production
400 000
500 000
Low
Sources: adapted from McKinsey and Co. (2011), A Portfolio of Powertrains for Europe: a Fact-Based Analysis, The Role of Battery Electric
Vehicles, Plug-in Hybrids and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles; US DOE (2012), Fuel Cell Technologies Program Record; US DOE (2014d), DOE Fuel
Cell Technologies Office Record Fuel Cell System Costs.
KEY POINT: Although current PEMFC systems for FCEVs cost around USD300 to USD500 per kW,
cost can be reduced dramatically with economies of scale.
31
Table 10: C
urrent performance of key hydrogen conversion,
T&D and storage technologies
Power or
capacity
Efficiency *
Initial
investment cost
Alkaline FC
Up to 250 kW
~50% (HHV)
PEMFC
stationary
0.5-400 kW
PEMFC mobile
Application
Life time
Maturity
USD 200-700/kW
5 000-8 000
hours
Early market
32%-49% (HHV)
~60 000
hours
Early market
80-100 kW
Up to 60% (HHV)
USD ~500/kW
SOFC
Up to 200 kW
50%-70% (HHV)
Up to 90 000
hours
Demonstration
PAFC
Up to 11 MW
30%-40% (HHV)
Mature
MCFC
KW to several
MW
More than
60% (HHV)
20 000Early market
30 000 hours
Compressor,
18 MPa
88%-95%
20 years
Mature
Compressor,
70 MPa
80%-91%
USD 200-400/kWH2
20 years
Early market
Liquefier
15-80 MW
~70%
30 years
Mature
FCEV on-board
storage tank,
70 MPa
5 to 6 kg H2
15 years
Early market
Pressurised
tank
0.1-10 MWh
20 years
Mature
Liquid storage
0.1-100 GWh
20 years
Mature
95%,
incl. compression
40 years
Mature
Pipeline
32
Compressors
Compressors are a key technology for hydrogen
storage. Hydrogen pressure levels range from 2MPa
to 18MPa for underground storage, over 35MPa
to 50MPa for gaseous truck transport and up to
70MPa for on-board storage in FCEVs. A recent
study from the USNational Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL) concluded that very sparse
data are available on compression technology at
very high pressures (e.g. needed for FCEV onboard storage), with energy demand necessary
for compression varying by a factor of ten among
technologies (NREL, 2014). This is largely due to the
fact that to date such high pressure compressors
are produced in small numbers, as only very little
demand exists.
33
Figure 12: Energy-related carbon emission reductions by sector in the ETP 2DS
60
Transport 20%
50
Industry 21%
GtCO2
40
Buildings 12%
30
Other transformation 8%
20
10
0
2012
2020
2030
2040
2050
KEY POINT: All energy sectors need to contribute to achieve the ETP 2DS.
34
Transport
Although global transport activity is estimated to
double between now and 2050 under a businessas-usual scenario, transport-related carbon
emissions are halved compared with 2012 in the
2DS, thus contributing about 20% to total energyrelated emission reductions (Figure 12). In 2012,
road transport accounted for 75% of all transport
emissions. It will therefore have to contribute the
largest share to total transport sector emission
reductions in the future.
Box 5: ETP scenarios and the hydrogen roadmap variant FCEV roll-out scenario
The ETP 2DS describes how technologies and
energy-use patterns across all energy sectors
may be transformed by 2050 to give a 50%
chance of limiting average global temperature
increase to 2C. It sets a target of cutting energyrelated CO2 emissions by more than half by 2050
(compared with 2012). The 2DS acknowledges
that transforming the energy sector is vital
but not the sufficient solution; the goal can
only be achieved if CO2 and GHG emissions in
non-energy sectors are also reduced. The 2DS
is broadly consistent with the World Energy
Outlook 450 Scenario through to 2040.
The model used for the analysis of the power
and fuel transformation sectors is a bottom-up
TIMES* model that uses cost optimisation to
identify least-cost mixes of technologies and
fuels to meet energy demand, given constraints
such as the availability of natural resources. The
TIMES energy supply model, which has been
used in many analyses of the global energy
sector, is supplemented by detailed demandside simulation models for all major end-uses in
the industry, buildings and transport sectors.
The IEA ETP 6DS is largely an extension of
current trends. By 2050, global energy use
increases by 75% (compared with 2015) and
total GHG emissions rise by almost 60%. In
the absence of efforts to stabilise atmospheric
concentrations of GHGs, the average global
temperature is projected to rise to up to 6C in
the long term. The 6DS is broadly consistent
with the World Energy Outlook Current Policy
Scenario through to 2040.
35
Box 5: ETP s cenarios and the hydrogen roadmap variant FCEV roll-out scenario
(continued)
With the large-scale deployment of hydrogen
technologies in transport, the economic barriers
linked to the establishment of the hydrogen
infrastructure are reduced if combined with
rapid technology adoption, higher FCEV market
penetration and thus higher hydrogen demand.
Figure 13: P
LDV stock by technology for the UnitedStates,
EU4 and Japan in the 2DShighH2
United States
250
160
Japan
EU 4
70
140
200
60
120
50
100
150
40
80
100
30
60
20
40
50
10
20
0
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
Conventional ICE gasoline
Hybrid gasoline
Plug-in hybrid gasoline
Plug-in hybrid diesel
0
2010
2020
2030
2040
Conventional ICE diesel
BEV
0
2010
2050
Hybrid diesel
FCEV
2020
2030
2040
2050
KEY POINT: While in all regions the share of conventional vehicles drops below 10% by 2050,
the technology mix remains region-specific.
36
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
20
45
70
95
120
Electrcity price USD/MWh
Carbon price USD/tCO2
PEM EL
NG CCS low
NG CCS high
NG medium
145
175
Figure 14: C
ost of hydrogen as a function of electricity price
and annual load factor
250
200
150
100
50
0
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
PEM EL 60 USD/MWh
NG CCS medium
NG CCS low
Notes: PEM EL = proton exchange membrane electrolyser; LCOE = levelised cost of energy; NG = natural gas; for the lefthand graph, annual loads of 85% are assumed for all technology options, and the dashed line marks the sensitivity of LCOE
for hydrogen from a PEM electrolyser with a 30% variation in cost and a 10% variation in efficiency.
For hydrogen from natural gas, the terms low, medium and high denote: low natural gas price: USD20perMWh, no T&D;
medium natural gas price: USD40perMWh, T&D: USD25perMWh of H2; high natural gas price: USD60perMWh, T&D:
USD50perMWh of H2.
37
Table 11: C
ost of PLDVs by technology as computed
in the model for the UnitedStates
Conventional ICE gasoline
Today
28600
29300
Hybrid gasoline
30000
32400
35400
FCEV
60000
2030
30900
2050
32300
Unit
USD
31700
33100
USD
31800
33200
USD
33200
34400
USD
32800
34000
USD
33600
33400
USD
Note: In line with results from the National Academy of Science report on Transitions to Alternative Vehicles and Fuels (National
Research Council, 2013,) FCEVs become less expensive than plug-in hybrids by 2050. Similar tables showing the costs of PLDVs as
computed by the model for Europe and Japan can be found in the Technology Annex.
Table 12: T
echno-economic parameters of FCEVs as computed
in the model for the UnitedStates
Today
60000
2030
33600
2050
33400
Unit
USD
23100
30200
4300
600
1800
24100
4300
3100
460
1600
25600
3200
2800
260
1400
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
380
20
460
54
14
350
40
13
200
USD/kW
USD/kWh
USD/kW
1.0
12
0.8
12
0.6
12
KgH2/100km
Years
FCEV costs
Thereof
Specific costs
Glider*
Fuel cell system**
H2 tank**
Battery**
Electric motor and power control**
Other parameters
Note: The USD DOE Fuel Cell Technology Office Record 13010 suggests total system costs of the 70MPa hydrogen tank of USD33perkWh
at annual production rates of 10000 vehicles, dropping to about USD17perkWh at annual production rates of 10000 vehicles (USDOE,
2013). A tested fuel economy of 0.8kgH2per100km has been reported for the Toyota Mirai (Toyota, 2015a). The assumed tested fuel
economy for todays FCEVs in the UnitedStates is higher based on the assumption that PLDVs are generally larger in the UnitedStates
compared to Japan. They are in line with the results provided in the NREL FCEV demonstration project report (NREL, 2012a).
* future cost increase is due to light-weighting, improved aerodynamics, low resistance tyres and high efficient auxiliary devices.
** future costs are based on learning curves with learning rates of 10% (H 2 tank), 15% (electric motor, power control, battery) and 20%
(fuel cell system) per doubling of cumulative deployment.
38
Figure 15: S
pecific PLDV stock on-road WTW emissions by technology
for the UnitedStates, EU4 and Japan in the 2DShighH2
300
United States
300
EU 4
300
200
200
200
100
100
100
2015
2030
2050
2015
Hybrid gasoline
2030
2050
Plug-in hybrid gasoline
Japan
2015
BEV
2030
2050
FCEV
Note: Stock on-road WTW emissions include the upstream emissions from liquid fuel production as well as power and hydrogen
generation. The fuel economy of the vehicle stock is based on the fuel economy of new vehicles sold, assumptions on average age and
a gap factor of approximately 20%, accounting for the difference between test-cycle fuel economy and on-road fuel economy.
KEY POINT: While FCEVs currently offer moderate WTW emission reductions compared to conventional
PLDVs, they can enable low-emission, long-distance individual motorised transport in the longer term.
Hydrogen T&D
and refuelling infrastructure
The configuration of hydrogen T&D and retail
infrastructure is determined by many parameters,
including: hydrogen demand; the distance to
the hydrogen production site; the density of the
urban environment; and assumptions on the
39
Figure 16: S
cheme of hydrogen T&D and retail infrastructure
as represented within the model
Centralised
hydrogen
production
Liquid or gaseous
trucking/pipeline
50 to 150 km
High capacity
terminal
50 km
Sub-terminal
Decentralised
hydrogen
Hydrogen
refueling
station
Liquid or gaseous
trucking/pipeline
Decentralised
hydrogen
Hydrogen
refueling
station
Hydrogen
refueling
station
Small City
Liquid or gaseous
trucking/pipeline
Hydrogen
refueling
station
Big City
KEY POINT: Different hydrogen generation, T&D and retail pathways will develop over time.
In the underlying model scenario, the centralised supply of small cities happens via terminals
based in large urban areas.
40
41
TWh
Japan
EU 4
United States
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2010
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
2020
Natural gas
2030
2040
0
2010
2050
2020
2030
2040
Biomass gasification
2050
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
EU 4
100
Japan
Biomass gasification
Electrolysis excess
power
Electroysis grid
power
0
Coal CCS
United States
NG SMR CCS
100
2050
200
NG SMR
200
Today
NG SMR
Figure 18: Hydrogen production costs without T&D for the 2DShighH2
KEY POINT: Hydrogen produced from grid electricity is costly compared to alternative
generation pathways. For cost-effective renewable hydrogen, the availability of low-cost,
surplus renewable electricity is a prerequisite.*****
***** All underlying technoeconomic assumptions can be found in Table 15
42
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
EU 4
Japan
United States
EU 4
2045
Japan
United States
EU 4
Japan
United States
Japan
EU 4
United States
0
Japan
5 000
EU 4
100
United States
500 kg
10 000
EU 4
15 000
200
Japan
300
United States
1800 kg
EU 4
20 000
Japan
25 000
400
Japan
30 000
500
United States
35 000
600
EU 4
700
United States
Number of staons
Figure 19: H
ydrogen stations for the 2DShighH2 in the UnitedStates,
EU 4 and Japan
2050
Note: By the end of 2015 already 100 hydrogen stations are planned to be built in Japan.
43
44
60
4.8
50
3.6
40
2.4
30
1.2
20
2010
0.0
2020
2030
FCEV
Hybrid gasoline
Plug-in hybrid gasoline
Costs of H2 at the staon
2040
2050
0.5
80
0.4
60
0.3
40
0.2
20
0.1
2010
2020
2030
FCEV
Convenonal ICE gasoline
BEV
FCEV stock millions
6.0
Total costs of driving
70
Costs of H2 USD/Lge
Figure 20: V
ehicle costs, fuel costs and TCD for FCEVs
in the 2DShighH2 in the UnitedStates
0
2040
2050
FCEV TCD sensivity
Hybrid gasoline
Plug-in hybrid gasoline
KEY POINT: While FCEV costs drop rapidly as sales ramp up, the cost of hydrogen at the pump
drops much more slowly. Hydrogen costs decline quickly as long as stations are clustered around
early demand centres. When the hydrogen refuelling network is expanded to provide the coverage
necessary to sell millions of FCEVs, hydrogen costs see another increase.
45
Figure 21: S
ubsidy per FCEV and share of annual subsidy as a percentage
of petroleum fuel tax revenue under the 2DShighH2 in the
UnitedStates, EU 4 and Japan
EU 4
Japan
80
80%
80
80%
80
80%
60
60%
60
60%
60
60%
40
40%
40
40%
40
40%
20
20%
20
20%
20
20%
0%
0%
0
2010
2020
2030
- 20
2040
2050
-20%
FCEV stock
2010
2020
- 20
2030
2040
0%
2010
2050
2020
2030
2040
-20% - 20
2050
-20%
Million vehicles
Thousand USD
United States
KEY POINT: If hydrogen was exempted from fuel taxes and rapid market penetration is assumed, the FCEV
market would be fully sustainable 15years after the introduction of the first 10000FCEVs.
46
Figure 22: C
O2 mitigation from FCEVs in transport under the 2DShighH2
in the UnitedStates, EU4 and Japan
EU 4
United States
3 000
1 000
2 500
800
Mt CO2
2 000
Japan
400
300
600
200
1 500
400
1 000
0
2010
100
200
500
2020
2030
2040
2050
0
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
0
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
FCEV
KEY POINT: By 2050, the large-scale deployment of FCEVs in the transport sector could account for 14% of
the annual carbon mitigation reductions necessary to switch from a 6DS to a 2DS emission trajectory.
VRE integration
Global electricity demand is estimated to double by
2050 under a business-as-usual scenario, compared
to 2012 (Figure 23). It currently accounts for around
40% of total energy-related carbon emissions (IEA,
2015). The decarbonisation of electricity is pivotal
to achieving the 2DS by 2050 annual powersector carbon emissions need to be reduced by
more than 85% compared to 2012. Lower electricity
demand resulting from more efficient processes
across energy demand sectors accounts for about a
quarter of total power-sector emission reductions.
The remaining three-quarters need to come from
drastic reductions in the carbon profile of electricity
its global average carbon intensity needs to drop
to 40grams of carbon dioxide (gCO2)perkWh by
2050, from around 533gCO2perkWh in 2012.
47
Figure 23: Global electricity generation mix under the 6DS and 2DS
2DS
TWh
6DS
50 000
50 000
40 000
40 000
30 000
30 000
20 000
20 000
10 000
10 000
0
2012
Natural gas
2020
2030
2040
Oil
Coal
0
2012
2050
Coal with CCS
Nuclear
2020
2030
Hydro
2040
Solar
Wind
2050
Other
KEY POINT: The power mix has to change drastically to reach the 2DS while fossil fuels dominate todays
power generation, the share of renewable power needs to increase to 63% globally by 2050.
Figure 24: I nstalled electricity storage capacity for selected regions today
and in 2050 under the 2DS and the storage breakthrough scenario
180
160
140
2011
GW
120
100
2050 2DS
80
60
40
20
0
United States
EU 28
China
India
KEY POINT: Under the 2DS, electricity storage accounts for up to 8% of total
installed power capacity by 2050.
48
This section compares LCOE of different hydrogenbased storage systems to those of the benchmarking
technology in the respective field of application. In
order to compare energy of the same quality, the
comparison focuses on LCOE of output electricity,
i.e. taking into account the final conversion step to
electricity in case of power-to-gas applications.
Abbreviation
H2PtPPEM/PEM
H2PtPAlk/PEM
H2PtPPEM/OCGT
CAES
PHS
Power-topower
Power-togas
Table 14: S
ystem specifications for inter-seasonal energy storage
and arbitrage
Unit
Inter-seasonal storage
Arbitrage
MW
200
300
MW
500
300
hours
120
274
7%
17%
USD/MWh
0-20
0-50
Discharge duration
49
9. T
he costs of natural gas are those of the EU in the 2DS
accounting for USD35perMWh in 2030 and USD29perMWh
in 2050. CO2 prices of USD90pertonofCO2 in 2030 and of
USD150pertonofCO2 in 2050 are taken into account. For
the OCGT an annual utilisation factor of 15% is assumed. The
input electricity for the storage systems is assumed to be
100% renewable.
50
Figure 25: L
COE for inter-seasonal energy storage via power-to-power systems
and VRE integration via power-to-gas systems in 2030 and 2050
Levellised costs of electricity
USD/MWh
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
2030
600
2050
400
OCGT benchmark
200
0
H2 PtP
PEM/PEM
H2 PtP
H2 PtP
H2 PtG
PEM HENG
H2 PtG PEM
methan.
PHS
CAES
KEY POINT: Looking ahead, hydrogen-based energy storage systems show the greatest potential
to achieve acceptable LCOE for seasonal storage applications.
Daily arbitrage
Daily arbitrage allows for the shifting of stored
electricity from times of low demand to times of
high demand, taking advantage of the respective
electricity price differential. Operated for daily
arbitrage reasons, future hydrogen-based powerto-power storage systems almost achieve the
performance of pumped hydro or compressed
air storage, if very low-cost electricity is available
(Figure 26). As the overall efficiency of the
hydrogen-based systems is lower than for PHS and
CAES (see Table 15), LCOE10 is much more sensitive
to the cost of electricity. Hydrogen-based storage
systems would only work for arbitrage reasons with
a very high spread of electricity prices between
times of low and high demand. To break even with
the 2DS storage benchmark, input electricity should
cost no more than USD10perMWh by 2030 and
USD25perMWh by 2050, which is unlikely to
happen at the assumed annual utilisation factor for
daily arbitrage.
For hydrogen-based power-to-power storage
systems to achieve LCOE of USD90perMWh, as in
the breakthrough scenario, the cost of investment
attributable to both the electrolyser and the fuel cell
would need to drop to around USD400perMWh,
and efficiencies would need to increase to up to
10.
The costs of natural gas are those of the EuropeanUnion
under the 2DS, accounting for USD35 per MWh in 2030 and
USD29 per MWh in 2050. CO2 prices of USD90 per tonne of
CO2 in 2030 and USD150per tonne ofCO2 in 2050 are taken
into account. The input electricity for the storage systems is
assumed to be 100% renewable.
51
Figure 26: L
COE of different energy storage technologies
for daily arbitrage in 2030 and 2050
Levelised costs of electricity
USD/MWh
300
250
2030
200
2050
150
2DS storage benchmark
100
2DS storage breakthrough
benchmark
50
0
H2 PtP
PEM/PEM
H2 PtP
PHS
H2 PtP
CAES
KEY POINT: Hydrogen-based storage technologies can be competitive at low electricity input prices.
Figure 27: M
arginal abatement costs of different hydrogen-based
VRE power integration applications in 2030 and 2050
Marginal abatement costs
USD/tCO2
1 200
1 000
2030
800
2050
600
400
200
2050 2DS carbon price
0
Power-topower
Power-to-gas
Power-to-gas
blending
methanation
Power-tofuel
KEY POINT: Power-to-fuel applications offer the lowest marginal abatement costs in the long term.
52
Industry
Industrial direct CO2 emissions peak in 2020 under
the ETP2DS (IEA, 2015), and innovative low-carbon
processes become critical to achieving the 2DS in
the long term.
Refining industry
Steel industry
Chemical industry
Hydrogen is used as a feedstock in the synthesis
of high-demand chemicals such as ammonia and
methanol. The fossil-based steam-reforming process
used for hydrogen generation is one of the largest
energy-consuming steps in the synthesis of these
chemical products. Although shifting hydrogen
production from fossil to renewable-based routes
53
Synergies between
energy sectors
54
250
200
200
150
150
30% Gain
100
100
50
50
0
0
-50
876
1752
2628
3504
4380
5256
6132
7008
7884
8760
Hydrogen
Dynamic LCOE
Electricity
Spot price
Cumulave average spot
price
Point of opmal
operaon
-50
KEY POINT: A more dynamic use of the electrolyser with optimised operation with respect to input
electricity costs and annual utilisation rate can significantly reduce LCOE of hydrogen generation.
55
56
2030
Today
USD/
kWh
USD/
kWh
Investment
cost
conversion
Investment
cost
storage
Fixed
O&M
Fixed
O&M
Efficiency
USD/
kWh
Investment
cost
storage
5%
870
95000
75%
5%
1150
USD/kW
Investment
cost
conversion
74%
75000
5%
800
75000
82%
5%
2600
40000
73%
AlkaPEM
line
electroelectrolyser
lyser
Efficiency
Unit
3%
440
30
82%
3%
550
30
77%
NG
SMR
5%
700
30
73%
5%
1370
30
70%
NG SMR
with
CCS
5%
1280
30
57%
5%
1670
30
56%
Coal
CCS
5%
1320
30
50%
5%
4930
30
50%
Biomass
gasification
Hydrogengenerationandconversion
5%
450
20000
50%
5%
700
7000
50%
Alkaline FC
5%
830
80000
54%
5%
3200
60000
43%
PEM FC
5%
1620
75000
42%
5%
5800
40000
29%
H2 PtP
PEM/
PEM
5%
1700
75000
38%
5%
4350
60000
29%
H2 PtP
ALK/
PEM
5%
1420
75000
35%
5%
3230
40000
26%
H2 PtP
PEM/
OCGT
5%
1050
75000
82%
5%
2850
40000
73%
H2 PtG
PEM
HENG
5%
2280
75000
67%
5%
4090
40000
58%
H2 PtG
PEM
methan.
3%
50
1500
50
80%
3%
50
1500
50
80%
PHS
EnergystorageandVREintegration
5%
15
800
30
75%
5%
30
1000
30
60%
CAES
3%
500
30
45%
3%
500
30
39%
OCGT
Benchmark
Table 15: P
arameters used in the model for stationary hydrogen generation and conversion technologies
as well as for energy storage and VRE integration systems today and in the future
57
USD/
kWh
USD/
kWh
Investment
cost
conversion
Investment
cost
storage
Fixed
O&M
Efficiency
5%
700
95000
78%
5%
640
75000
86%
AlkaPEM
line
electroelectrolyser
lyser
3%
420
30
86%
NG
SMR
5%
670
30
77%
NG SMR
with
CCS
5%
1220
30
60%
Coal
CCS
5%
1250
30
53%
Biomass
gasification
5%
360
20000
53%
Alkaline FC
5%
660
80000
57%
PEM FC
5%
1300
75000
44%
H2 PtP
PEM/
PEM
5%
1360
75000
40%
H2 PtP
ALK/
PEM
5%
1140
75000
37%
H2 PtP
PEM/
OCGT
5%
840
75000
86%
H2 PtG
PEM
HENG
5%
1820
75000
71%
H2 PtG
PEM
methan.
3%
50
1500
50
80%
PHS
EnergystorageandVREintegration
5%
15
760
30
79%
CAES
3%
500
30
47%
OCGT
Benchmark
Sources: IEA data; Bnger, et al. (2014), Power-to-Gas (PtG) in Transport - Status Quo and Perspectives for Development; Decourt et al. (2014), Hydrogen-Based Energy Conversion,
More Than Storage: System Flexibility; Dodds and McDowall (2012), A Review of Hydrogen Production Technologies for Energy System Models; ETSAP (2014), Hydrogen Production and
Distribution; FCH-JU (2014), Development of Water Electrolysis in the European Union, Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking; Giner Inc. (2013), PEM electrolyser incorporating an
advanced low-cost membrane, 2013 Hydrogen Program Annual Merit Review Meeting; Hydrogen Implementing Agreement Task 25 (2009), Alkaline Electrolysis; NETL (2013), Carbon
Dioxide Transport and Storage Costs in NETL Studies; NETL (2010), Production of High Purity Hydrogen from Domestic Coal: Assessing the Techno-Economic Impact of Emerging Technologies;
NREL (2010), NREL (2009a), Scenario development and analysis of hydrogen as a large-scale energy storage medium, RMEL Meeting; NREL (2009b), Scenario Development and Analysis
of Hydrogen as a Large-Scale Energy Storage Medium; Saur (2008), Wind-To-Hydrogen Project: Electrolyzer Capital Cost Study; Stolzenburg et al. (2014), Integration von Wind-WasserstoffSystemen in das Energiesystem - Abschlussbericht; Schaber, Steinke and Hamacher, (2013) Managing temporary oversupply from renewables efficiently: electricity storage versus energy
sector coupling in Germany, International Energy Workshop, Paris; US DOE (2014b), Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program Record.
2050
Unit
Hydrogengenerationandconversion
Data assessment
and model development
This roadmap recommends the following actions
Development of appropriate modelling tools
2015-18
2015-18
Support R&D for system Support R&D projects that increase the understanding of the interintegration projects
actions between different energy sectors, and which help to quantify benefits and challenges of system integration beyond energy
flows, including questions relating to information flows, system
controllability and robustness, as well as data security aspects.
2015-18
Support coordination
between relevant actors
2015-18
58
Time frame
Technology development
Electrolysers
This roadmap recommends the following actions
Time frame
Electrolysers in general
Complete by
2020-30
PEM electrolysers
Complete by
2025-30
Alkaline electrolysers
Complete by
2025-30
SO electrolysers
Complete by
2025-30
59
Fuel cells
This roadmap recommends the following actions
Time frame
Complete
by 2025
PEMFCs, mobile
applications
Complete
by 2025
PEMFCs, stationary
applications
Complete
by 2025-30
Complete
by 2025-30
SOFCs
Complete
by 2025-35
Hydrogen storage
This roadmap recommends the following actions
Time frame
Underground hydrogen
storage
Complete
by 2025-35
Pressurised tanks
Complete by
2025
60
Complete
by 2030-35
2015
onwards
FCEVs
This roadmap recommends the following actions
Time frame
Investment costs
Complete
by 2025
On-board hydrogen
storage
Reduce the volume and the weight of the hydrogen tank. Reduce
specific costs to at least below USD 15 per kWh.
Complete
by 2025
Fuel economy
and range
Complete
by 2025
Complete
by 2035
Complete
by 2020
Refuelling
61
Hydrogen T&D
and retail infrastructure
This roadmap recommends the following actions
Tractor-trailer
combinations
Retail station
Complete
by 2020-25
Compressor
Complete
by 2020-25
62
Time frame
Complete
by 2025
Time frame
Complete
by 2020-25
Poly-generation
with CCS
Complete
by 2020-25
Reduce the cost of CO2 capture from flue gases and other sources
identified as potential CO2 suppliers for power-to-gas and powerto-liquids processes to USD 15 to USD 50 per tonne of CO2.
Suppliers could include biogas upgraders, bioethanol mills, steel
plants, refineries, chemical plants, power plants or direct air
capture (depending on timing of anticipated need).
Complete
by 2025-35
CO2 storage
Complete
by 2020-30
63
13. F
or comparison, in 2012 about USD1billion has been
spent by governments on solar and CSP RD&D, and around
USD1.5billion was allocated to biofuels.
64
Region
Exemple
Europe
zz
zz
zz
zz
zz
zz
zz
zz
North
America
zz CaFCP,California)
zz H2USA (UnitedStates)
zz Canadian Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Association (CHFCA, Canada)
Japan
Hydrogen in transport
This roadmap recommends the following actions
Policy
Target group
Technology
neutral
Consumers
Feebate schemes
Consumers
Labelling schemes
Consumers
Consumer
Car manufacturers
Car manufacturers
Fuel suppliers
Consumers
Consumers
Time frame
Implement
by 201520
Fuel suppliers
65
Hydrogen in
stationary applications
This roadmap recommends the following actions
Policy
Target group
Carbon pricing
Time frame
Implement
by 201520
66
Technology
neutral
Time frame
67
Finance
This roadmap recommends the following actions
Time frame
Implement
by 2015-20
the technology. They will need a stable, longterm support to deployment and the provision of
long-term, low-interest loans or the development
of renewable energy grants and funds can help to
reduce the costs of capital.
68
14.
Green bonds are fixed-income, liquid financial instruments
that are used to raise funds dedicated to climate mitigation,
adaptation and other environment-friendly projects (www.
worldbank.org/en/topic/climatechange/brief/green-bondsclimate-finance).
International collaboration
69
Conclusion:
Near-term actions for stakeholders
This roadmap investigates the potential for
hydrogen technologies to help achieve an emission
trajectory needed to limit the long-term global
average temperature rise to 2C. It includes specific
milestones that the international community can
use to track the progress of hydrogen technology
deployment, if hydrogen is to play a significant
role as an energy carrier by 2050, as outlined in the
Lead
stakeholder
armonise safety codes and standards for hydrogen T&D and retail infrastructure as well
Governments zz H
as for hydrogen metering.
zz W
here regionally relevant, establish standards for natural gas quality with hydrogen
blend share.
zz S
upport research projects that increase understanding of the interactions between
different energy sectors, and which help to quantify benefits and challenges of system
integration.
zz S
upport RD&D necessary to improve key hydrogen conversion technologies such as
electrolysers and fuel cells.
zz S
upport government involvement in demonstration projects, especially with respect to
hydrogen transmission, distribution and retail infrastructure roll-out.
zz A
ddress potential market barriers where opportunities exist for the use of low-carbon
hydrogen in industry (e.g. in refineries).
zz E xtend information campaigns and educational programs to increase awareness-raising.
zz I dentify the lowest-cost system design and manufacturing methods for fuel cells and
electrolysers. Optimise lifetime and degradation and scale up system size.
zz D
emonstrate the large-scale mobility potential of FCEVs by proving on-road practicality
and economics across the supply chain of FCEVs. Put the first tens of thousands of FCEVs
on the road.
Industry
zz P
rove the economic feasibility and built-up hydrogen generation, T&D and retail capacity
necessary to refuel several tens of thousands of FCEVs.
zz Demonstrate hydrogen-based energy storage systems in large-scale applications.
zz W
here regionally relevant, accelerate activities directed at developing the capture and
storage of CO2 from fossil-derived hydrogen production into mature business activities.
zz Bring down costs and of FC micro combined heat and power systems.
70
Lead
stakeholder
Academia
zz D
evelop strategies to cluster hydrogen refuelling infrastructure during technology
roll-out.
zz Include and improve linkages between different energy infrastructure systems (e.g.the
power grid and the natural gas grid) in national energy system models.
zz Improve methods to quantify directly and indirectly occurring upstream GHG emissions
during transport fuel generation, T&D and retail beyond the focus on carbon dioxide
emissions.
zz D
etermine maximum acceptable blend shares of hydrogen in natural gas to comply with
different end-use specifications.
71
Abbreviations, acronyms
and units of measurement
Abbreviations and acronyms
SOFC
SR
smelt reduction
T&D
TCD
ALK
alkaline
BEV
BF
blast furnace
BFG
BOFG
BOP
balance of plant
CAES
CCGT
CCS
EJ
Exajoule
CNG
Gt
Gigatonne
COG
Kg
Kilogramm
CV
commercial vehicle
Km
Kilometre
DRI
kW
Kilowatt
EAF
Lge
EL
electrolyser
MPa
Megapascal
ETP
Mt
Megatonne
FC
fuel cell
MW
Megawatt
FCEV
HHV
ICE
IGCC
LCOE
WTW
well-to-wheel
Units of measure
TWh
Terawatt hour
LHV
MFT
NG
natural gas
PEM
PHS
PLDV
PtG
power-to-gas
PtP
power-to-power
72
References
Argonne National LaboratoryNuclear Division
(2010), Technical Assessment of Compressed
Hydrogen Storage Tank Systems for Automotive
Applications, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont,
IL.
Blum, L. et al. (2014), Overview on the Jlich SOFC
development status, 11th European SOFC and SOE
Forum, Lucerne.
Brmmer, T. (2013), Gas Quality and Interoperability,
Gasunie, Brussels.
Bnger, U. et al. (2014), Power-to-Gas (PtG)
in Transport - Status Quo and Perspectives for
Development, Deutsches Zentrum fr Luft- und
Raumfahrt e.V., Berlin.
Decourt, B. et al. (2014), Hydrogen-Based Energy
Conversion, More Than Storage: System Flexibility, SBC
Energy Institute, Paris.
Deutscher Verein des Gas- und Wasserfaches (2013),
Entwicklung von Modularen Konzepten zur Erzeugung,
Speicherung und Einspeisung von Wasserstoff und
Methan in Erdgasnetz, Deutscher Verein des Gasund Wasserfaches, Bonn.
Dodds, P. and W. McDowall (2012), A Review of
Hydrogen Production Technologies for Energy System
Models, UCL Energy Institute, University College
London.
Elgowainy, A. (2014), Hydrogen infrastructure
analysis in early markets of FCEVs, IEA Hydrogen
Roadmap North America Workshop, Argonne
National Laboratory, Bethesda, MD.
ETSAP (2014), Hydrogen Production and Distribution,
IEA Energy Technology Network, Energy Technology
System Analysis Programme.
Eurogas (2014), Statistical Report 2014, Eurogas,
Brussels.
European Commission (2014), Council Directive on
Laying Down Calculation Methods and Reporting
Requirements Pursuant to Directive 98/70/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council Relating
to the Quality of Petrol and Diesel fuels, European
Commission, Brussels.
European Commission (2011), White Paper: Roadmap
to a Single European Transport Area Towards a
Competitive and Resource Efficient Transport System,
European Commission, Brussels.
References
73
74
References
75
nline
bookshop
www.iea.org/books
PDF versions
at 20% discount
New releases
There are no quick fixes to long-term energy challenges. To find solutions, governments
and industry benefit from sharing resources and results. For this reason the IEA supports
multilateral experts groups on a wide range of technologies. Recent achievements of
these groups are synthesised in the biennial Energy Technology Initiatives. The 2015
edition marks the 40th anniversary. Forthcoming 4th quarter 2015.
www.iea.org/techinitiatives
The IEA Policies and Measures Databases contain information on policies and
measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy efficiency and support
renewable energy. This online service complements the policy analysis carried out by
the IEA and covers all IEA member countries as well as many non-member countries.
Delegates from IEA member countries are given the opportunity to review the
information twice a year. www.iea.org/policiesandmeasures
Capturing the Multiple Benefits of Energy Efficiency goes beyond the traditional analysis
of energy demand reduction and climate change mitigation. With its potential to
enhance economic prosperity, social development, sustainability and energy security,
the multiple benefits perspective can reposition energy efficiency in the policy
mainstream. www.iea.org/multiplebenefits
IEA Technology Roadmaps help set the agenda for development and deployment of
key low-carbon energy technologies. These free publications identify priority actions
needed to support technological advances and uptake by society in alignment with
the ETP 2DS vision. As of May 2015, 20 global roadmaps have been published, covering
topics including buildings, CCS, electric vehicles, nuclear, solar and storage. Further
global and regional roadmaps, as well as How2Guides, are in production. More details
at: www.iea.org/roadmaps
The paper used for this document has received certification from the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) for being
produced respecting PEFCs ecological, social and ethical standards. PEFC is an international non-profit, non-governmental organization
dedicated to promoting Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) through independent third-party certification.
This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of
international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
2015
2016
2020
2025
2030